Talk:Biology/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD m (→Minor Edits) |
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Thomas, I don't want to turn you off, but at this point in the CZ pilot, we are not so much into minor edits, and this is why: we have an idea to work on a large number of articles and get them into an "approved" status. It seems that the idea of an approved article in CZ is not the same as a WP feature article. Instead, it's a coherent article that is true and useful. The idea being that a user can access CZ and, reading approved article, feel confident that this is the real deal, so to speak. On a wiki where changes are constant, or at least very frequent, it's a dynamic state where improvements happen quickly, but so do mistakes or language that might not be an outright mistake, but something that confuses the explanation. There are only a few of us working now, and the system for approval is cumbersome. There are so many important topics that need to be totally rewritten that the task of tweaking an article that is in good enough shape to have been approved is not a current priority. Hopefully, when there are more people and a new server, this is not an issue. Biology was the first approved article and its far from perfect, but its basically ok. As far as Biology the major, that ''would'' be another article. We will get back to incorporating your, and other, suggestions from the draft into the ''next edition'' of the approved biology, but realistically, revised editions of ''approved'' articles are not going to be daily or weekly or, at this early stage, even monthly. The draft, on the other hand, is open to continual updates. That's how I see it, anyway. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 21:53, 12 January 2007 (CST) | Thomas, I don't want to turn you off, but at this point in the CZ pilot, we are not so much into minor edits, and this is why: we have an idea to work on a large number of articles and get them into an "approved" status. It seems that the idea of an approved article in CZ is not the same as a WP feature article. Instead, it's a coherent article that is true and useful. The idea being that a user can access CZ and, reading approved article, feel confident that this is the real deal, so to speak. On a wiki where changes are constant, or at least very frequent, it's a dynamic state where improvements happen quickly, but so do mistakes or language that might not be an outright mistake, but something that confuses the explanation. There are only a few of us working now, and the system for approval is cumbersome. There are so many important topics that need to be totally rewritten that the task of tweaking an article that is in good enough shape to have been approved is not a current priority. Hopefully, when there are more people and a new server, this is not an issue. Biology was the first approved article and its far from perfect, but its basically ok. As far as Biology the major, that ''would'' be another article. We will get back to incorporating your, and other, suggestions from the draft into the ''next edition'' of the approved biology, but realistically, revised editions of ''approved'' articles are not going to be daily or weekly or, at this early stage, even monthly. The draft, on the other hand, is open to continual updates. That's how I see it, anyway. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 21:53, 12 January 2007 (CST) | ||
P.S. I acually don't agree with any of the definitions of microbiology, genetics etc that seem to be the edits in question. Sorry. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 22:09, 12 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 22:09, 12 January 2007
Edits since first approval
http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Biology/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100013668
I request to get this edit edited by editors and considered for approval. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Personally, I think people should be able to add little links like this and get them in to the approved article faster. I think this could seriously be a negative to CZ if this small issue isn't addressed. However, CZ does a great job getting scientific 'experts' involved in editing. However, ease of addition is an important concept in wikis. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:47, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Suggestions
Talk about Biology, the major, as part of the definition of biology (?) or would that be another article. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Minor Edits
Thomas, I don't want to turn you off, but at this point in the CZ pilot, we are not so much into minor edits, and this is why: we have an idea to work on a large number of articles and get them into an "approved" status. It seems that the idea of an approved article in CZ is not the same as a WP feature article. Instead, it's a coherent article that is true and useful. The idea being that a user can access CZ and, reading approved article, feel confident that this is the real deal, so to speak. On a wiki where changes are constant, or at least very frequent, it's a dynamic state where improvements happen quickly, but so do mistakes or language that might not be an outright mistake, but something that confuses the explanation. There are only a few of us working now, and the system for approval is cumbersome. There are so many important topics that need to be totally rewritten that the task of tweaking an article that is in good enough shape to have been approved is not a current priority. Hopefully, when there are more people and a new server, this is not an issue. Biology was the first approved article and its far from perfect, but its basically ok. As far as Biology the major, that would be another article. We will get back to incorporating your, and other, suggestions from the draft into the next edition of the approved biology, but realistically, revised editions of approved articles are not going to be daily or weekly or, at this early stage, even monthly. The draft, on the other hand, is open to continual updates. That's how I see it, anyway. Nancy Sculerati MD 21:53, 12 January 2007 (CST)
P.S. I acually don't agree with any of the definitions of microbiology, genetics etc that seem to be the edits in question. Sorry. Nancy Sculerati MD 22:09, 12 January 2007 (CST)